When it comes to someone's theories of science or how the universe is, I've come to learn that the only way to be certain of any facts in the matter is to counsel with Heavenly Father on the matter. He's the only one I trust.

Interesting practice. I must admit that all through school, it never occured to me to pray for divine spiritual verification of the mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, or engineering I was learning. Doing so would have seemed to me, I think, an attempt to misuse a divine gift, like praying over which can of beans to buy.

There are truths within this book that may surprise you. Abraham had seen more than what is written in the Pearl of great Price that is not written. There are other non-canonized wittings that illustrate what Professor Nibley discovered what was shown to this special prophet due to his desire to know what the previous fathers knew.
Gillebre, you are correct. As we advanced our spiritual knowledge, we should rely on that spirit or the Godhead and not the counsel of men. When we have that desire to be like Enoch, Abraham, Moses, or even Joseph Smith, and live the will of the FATHER, those truths will begin to unravel before our eyes and will see the truths that are hidden from the world and the church [due to the spiritual immaturity].

I believe we have found reasonable evidence that most if not all galaxies have a 'black hole' at their centers. Pretty interesting.

HiJolly

"All it takes is for us to get a little bit self-important and narrow-minded. Toss in a little fussiness, a bit of dogma, and a bunch of pride and you've got yourself a bunch of people who wouldn't recognize the truth if it sat on them."-- Robert Kirby

and don't the scriptures say that Kolob governs all things? What if it governs all things by gravity (ie holding them in place/orbit/whatever)?
And I don't recall any scripture or Prophet declaring that it couldn't be a black hole. I mean, if you think about it...what has enough power to hold a galaxy in place? Every outlying star, planet, asteroid, and everything else is held by gravity. Something's at the center which is keeping everything in place - and we know that it's some incredibly awesome force...and science tells us that (super-massive) black holes are just about the only things capable of such a feat (from what I learned, anyway).
Just food for thought. This book was a very interesting read. I enjoyed taking what the author related to heart and pondering it out.

This kind of nonsense is one of the reasons people look at Mormonism with a skeptical eye.

Many of these completely uncientific "doctrines" are taught, by those not called to do so, and soon these teachers attract adherents, whose bizarre beliefs, based in absurd speculation, become the center of attention by potential converts, people not strong in the gospel, and especially the media. Face it, if there are adhrents to this nonsense, it IS a news story.

I also assure you, if a true scientist were to read this book, it would not only not be taken seriously--it would also leave the impression that Latter-day Saints are a fringe, cult-like religion with bizarre beliefs about the universe that have no basis in fact.

Another thread's title was "Why do people think badly of the Church"? (I do not know if this is verbatim, but I think it is.)

I also assure you, if a true scientist were to read this book, it would not only not be taken seriously--it would also leave the impression that Latter-day Saints are a fringe, cult-like religion with bizarre beliefs about the universe that have no basis in fact.

Oh, you don't have to be a scientist to come to that impression. Take a look at Amazon.com's one star reviews of the book.

I'd be ok if the book was called "One Mormon's View" instead of "A Mormon's View", but whatever.

LM

If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack, to sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.

I would love to read this book! I'm fasinated by Kolob! I love learning more about it.

Then in all seriousness, I would advise you not to read this book. You won't learn anything (useful) about Kolob. If you really, truly want to learn about Kolob, read the Pearl of Great Price. Everything we know about Kolob is contained therein.

I repeat: EVERYTHING we know about Kolob is contained therein.

If you just can't live without reading the book, it's available online. Look earlier in this thread for the URL.

I just finished reading this book. I'm almost inclined to take personally all the bashing done here of this book and its author, because I personally love this book and believe most of it to be true or at least very highly probable.
Furthermore, some of the heated language I see being used to condemn it (decidedly NOT too strong a word to describe what I'm perceiving) reminds me quite strongly of the kind of un-Christlike language I see used by the inhabitants of the proverbial "great and spacious building" or "Babylon", which we see around us today -- the worldly people who lack the virtues taught by Christ, and revel in their abilities to insult, offend, and defile. Long story short, we, as members of the Church, ought to be capable of expressing our dislike of something like this book without resorting to acting like we're auditioning for a spot in the Sanhedrin.
Ask yourselves, what if your grandfather or father had written this book? Would you still heap such strident criticism upon it and the author? The author of this book IS someone's father, someone's grandfather. Bare that in mind when you choose your words.
And now back to the book itself.
For some time now, I have known that the world where my Heavenly Father resides is located at the center of this galaxy. I say KNOWN. This was revealed to me. I didn't really ask for this knowledge, but it was given to me as I pondered such things, and for such revelations I am always grateful. This book's author confirms what I had already known, which gains him a measure of immediate credibility with me. From that point on, I have considered everything else he admittedly theorizes in this book, and while some of it I don't see being certain truth, I find none of it to be the sort of heresy that requires me to saddle up and ride for Damascus, if you get my meaning. There were a few parts in this book where I did not see the logic behind a theory. Such parts of the book may possibly be true or untrue. Need we remind ourselves that the book is clearly labeled as a theorem (theory)? Maybe those parts I don't believe (yet?) ARE true. Maybe later on down the road I'll learn something that will make the pieces fit together and it will make sense. I have yet to hear of a General Authority stating that this book is untrue or doctrinally unsound. If the day ever comes that one does, we would all be obligated to heed his counsel. But unless that happens, this book is not heresy. Most of it resonated strongly with me, explaining things I already knew, or fitting with such knowledge naturally and comfortably, like interlocking puzzle pieces. This is how the Holy Spirit has manifested the truth of the Gospel to me, through reasoning and logic, in addition to a certain kind of "quickening" often referred to as a "burning within" by others. If it passes Moroni's muster, it's good enough for me.
As a convert, I can attest to the value of an open mind. If you're worried that a book like this will make us seem "unhip" to the Protestants, Catholics, and other sects of Christianity, or the rest of the world, for that matter, I can assure you that this book is unnecessary for that purpose. Some of our most basic beliefs seem like heresy, when misunderstood, to good people of other religions. And some of them only appear that way because of the smokescreen that Satan has spent the millenniums building. On the other hand, some seem born to hate and distrust. Some seem born cynics and skeptics. They will scorn you for your faith regardless, and their approval should not be inordinately, if at all valuable to you. People like that counseled me not to join the Church, but I didn't listen to them. The "wisdom" of the world is nothing compared to the Gospel. Should I have listened to them? No. I kept an open mind. I accepted that maybe I did not actually know everything. I accepted that maybe some things I had been led to believe by worldly philosophies, superstitions, and sectarian fallacies were wrong. I let the Holy Spirit decide what was true and followed His counsel, not the world around me.
Maybe some of you believe you feel the Holy Spirit telling you this book is heresy. I cannot argue with what you perceive, especially on a spiritual level. Your relationship with Heavenly Father is your private business. But you would do well to show that same consideration to others, especially in the Church. It is folly to condemn what you don't understand, and call it untrue on that basis alone. Ask yourself, if you were not born into this Church, would you have an open enough mind to at least consider the doctrines we teach? Are you humble enough? Are you willing enough to take some things on faith, to accept that they may not make sense at first, or to realize that in a thousand years you will know things that today might make your head spin? Can you really condemn those things today? If you are not ready to believe, just leave it at that.
Some of us find the deeper doctrines, such as what is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, to be truly amazing and faith building. I for one am greatly attracted to such things, as long as they are true. This book has not been proven untrue, to the best of my knowledge, and my conscience leaves me free to accept it. The fact that it hasn't come from a General Authority does not rule out its veracity. We are all capable of receiving revelation. A General Authority is uniquely anointed to declare doctrine to be true or untrue, to function as judges in God's Kingdom, and to tell us what is needful to know, declaring revelation meant for the entire Church. This book is not necessarily needful information or revelation necessary for the whole Church at present. If it doesn't strengthen your faith and inspire your mind and soul, put off this portion of your eternal progression until the day you are able to handle it. There is nothing wrong with not running faster than you are able. But some of us are rejuvenated and feel closer to our Father in Heaven when we read things like this. I would not have completed the discussions if it weren't for the amazing flood of information and the resulting surge in faith I got from it. The Church has made my Heavenly Father a real person who knows and loves me, whereas before, the sectarian beliefs I had been taught were absolute truth presented Him as a creator but not Father, who viewed me as an experiment and not a son, and who existed in some alternate universe or plane or dimension.
No offense to anyone who believes in such things, but I personally think that is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. The way I see it, there is only one universe. And if Father has His own Father, they share this universe. The universe is organized into galaxies, so it makes perfect sense that each Heavenly Father would have His own galaxy, wherein He would have plenty of room and material to bring to pass the salvation of His children. So if I could live long enough, or travel fast enough, and if I could abide the glory of a celestial kingdom, I could actually come face to face with Heavenly Father in mortality and of my own accord. But He has organized things in such a way that this is impossible. He has hidden the center of this galaxy, and placed veils between us, so that I can be forced to rely on my faith to find Him, as I should be. This does not mean He isn't there, just beyond those veils. Have we not learned to believe in things we can't see? Figuratively and literally? The Gospel of Jesus Christ has taught me to do so. I believe that is its purpose, in addition to teaching us how to be Christlike.
Some very good and noble people believe that if a doctrine doesn't have what they recognize as practical value to help them become more Christlike, than it is of absolutely no use to them. If this works for them, it is their prerogative as a child of God. Eventually we will all have to learn how to build a planet, star, galaxy, etc., if we make it to the celestial kingdom. Some of us are driven to learn what we can now. That too, is our prerogative as children of God. As long as we make sure we are doing all that we can to learn how to consistently live and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be among the wise virgins with extra oil for their lamps, we have seen to the most important of our duties. But this is not the end, and our eternal progression is not limited by anyone but ourselves.
Don't be like the sectarians of the 19th century who condemned the Gospel just because it didn't gel with their superstitions and prejudices. Keep an open mind and stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We ought to be able to do both at the same time. In Joseph Smith's day, those who couldn't manage that left the Church. They left over "new" things such as the law of eternal marriage (which also deals with plural marriage), and the law of consecration. Some members left when they heard that Joseph Smith was retranslating the Bible. B.H. Roberts has said that there is much of our own Church History which, if we are not sufficiently mature to understand it, can challenge our faith enough to cause us to leave the Church. If we are not mature enough to understand the law of consecration, for example, than we should wait until we are before we let our doubts on the matter drive us from the Church. But that doesn't mean the law of consecration doesn't come from God. It only means we are not ready to receive it.

some of the heated language I see being used to condemn it reminds me quite strongly of the kind of un-Christlike language I see used by the inhabitants of the proverbial "great and spacious building" or "Babylon", which we see around us today -- the worldly people who lack the virtues taught by Christ, and revel in their abilities to insult, offend, and defile. Long story short, we, as members of the Church, ought to be capable of expressing our dislike of something like this book without resorting to acting like we're auditioning for a spot in the Sanhedrin.

That's quite a stand to take, coming from someone who proceeds to call the beliefs he was raised with "a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction", and accuses 19th century sectarians of condemning the Gospel "just because it didn't gel with their superstitions and prejudices."

Let me guess - it's not the unrighteous judgementalism you take issue with - it's the 'heated words' that come along with it.

If it doesn't strengthen your faith and inspire your mind and soul, put off this portion of your eternal progression until the day you are able to handle it. There is nothing wrong with not running faster than you are able.

Right - anyone who doesn't buy what this book is selling, is merely spiritually stunted in some way. Got it.

Wasn't impressed with the book, not impressed with the arguements of the first zealous defender I've met.

LM

If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack, to sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.

My DH and I have speculated on this, with the idea that a universe occupies its own dimension of reality and each dimension might well have a different God in charge (it seems plausible that Heavenly Father had siblings, after all). Yes, we're geeks.

Neither of us would represent that theory as in any way doctrinal, please note. Both of us realize this is simply us kicking around theory. Doesn't matter to our salvation whether we're right or not, it's just interesting intellectual exercise.

See? That's what I'm talking about. Get personal. Get mean. Raise contention. This is not becoming of a Latter Day Saint.
I would also argue that this was done without provocation, but apparently what I said was taken in the worst possible way, much worse than I could have ever intended, and the worst possible interpretation of what I said is being used as justification for taunting and bickering. I've grown accustomed to seeing that at politico. People tend to forget that there's a human being on the other side of that message board, and they say things they wouldn't normally say face to face. Or maybe they would and they just don't care if they're uncivil.
The point is, this will be the undoing of our society, and one would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ is above that. Apparently some of us are not.
Ms. or Mr. "Loudmouth Mormon" (your words, not mine),
If you have a problem with something I've said, why not address me personally and privately? I took issue with some of the mean spirited language being used to deride the author of this book, but I did not single anyone out. I did not quote anyone and then criticize them as an individual. You did. That's the difference between your behavior and mine, so hopefully the word "hypocrite" isn't bouncing around in your head right now, though you already called me one in not so many words.
Regarding the beliefs with which I was raised, and I ask this with all due respect, what business of yours is it? I don't recall having much to say on the matter. You're mixing two different things together. I never said that the beliefs with which I was raised were "a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction", and even if I did, how on earth could that be construed as an attack against you? Do you even know how I was raised? What does it have to do with you? I did state something to the effect that the non-LDS beliefs with which I was raised were not accurate, and I did state that I personally think that the idea that there are multiple dimensions, planes, or parallel universes is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. That's an honest opinion, and I fail to see how it would get you so riled up. Maybe that's shortsightedness on my part. If so, I apologize for my insensitivity. Never mind that I wasn't speaking directly to or about you, or to you at all, in fact. I don't need to understand how you were offended to apologize, thankfully.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unrighteous judgmentalism". You're welcome to explain that bit to me if you want.
Your next quote (of me) strongly leads me to believe that you're simply spoiling for a rumble wherever one might be found, even on a website that is supposed to be for polite discussion about religious issues by people who either share the same beliefs or are at least tolerant of those beliefs. Maybe I should read over the terms of service for this website again, but I thought there were rules about being rude around here. And apparently, I must have misread that bit about contention being of the devil, as there seems to be a lot of it here. I have no idea why you would be so defensive, as well as offensive, over the second quote. Maybe I just came off as some kind of jerk and you're just retaliating, so I'll see if I can clarify.
I was saying that I know there are some people who are averse to such deep doctrines, that they feel that any doctrine that they do not see a practical, "real world" use for, is a waste of their time at best. I made no judgment to the wisdom of that mindset, and I don't think it's fair to accuse me of having done so. All I said was that it's probably for the best if people don't spend any time on deeper doctrines if they are uncomfortable doing so, and I don't blame them for that. I would hope such understanding could be reciprocated. But one would rationally be led to believe that you're not strictly a pragmatist based on the fact that you came to a thread discussing a book about deep doctrine.
You're acting like I called you out. You're acting like you have voluntarily assumed the non existent role of my personal target of contempt. That is your invention, not mine.
I'm sorry if something I said earlier has somehow translated into a direct, personal attack on you. I still don't understand how that could have happened, but I apologize nonetheless. I don't know why you're here, but I'm here as a member of the Church, to interact with other members of the Church, and where I'm from, we talk to each other and about each other with respect. Maybe it's just every ward I've ever been in, but we have this saying about Zion: "If you are not one, you are not mine." All I'm saying is that we need more mutual respect in this particular thread. I never meant to offend, and I thought I had chosen my words carefully enough that I wouldn't. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you're normally a nice person. I don't know you and can't say. Please forgive me for whatever it is you thought I said bad about you personally. God bless, my sibling.

Has anyone realised that the theory is fatally flawed from the outset? That Abraham facsimile (the hypocephalus) is geocentric. The author is trying to read it like a modern star chart. We don't know how Abraham studied the stars, how to interpret his chart, to what scale it is and even if it is an accurate copy or not.
I admit that I don't know astronomy or astrophysics. The author doesn't.
There are other problems, I mean logical fallacies, such as stating that man can't count all of God's creations yet in the same breath stating that there are about 150 billion!
Frankly, the BoA is useless when it comes to locating God's throne and kolob. It is as much use as saying in a galaxy far, far away. The key, I feel, is as much in Joseph Smith's idiosyncratic Hebrew as it is in the name of the star. Joseph Smith was a very keen Hebrew student, but not a great Hebraist. Nauvoo is a case in point. It really ought to be Naava, the feminine singular adjective, not the plural, but I digress.
Joseph Smith learnt his Hebrew from professor Joshua Seixas, an Ashkenazi Jew. The language of the Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish, a dialect of medieval Saxon German. One of the peculiarities of Ashekanazi Jews is their inability to roll their 'r's. I myself suffer from that, stupid genes.
Their pronunciation affected their reading of Hebrew.
Anyway, there are two basic ways in which they pronounce that sound. One sounds like a French or Berlin 'r', the other, like an 'l', which brings me to my point (dramatic drum roll)- the meaning of Kolob. In Hebrew, the adjective for near is karov (K-R-B). Using an Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation, the result is KOLOB. In Abraham 3:3 we read. "The name of the great one is Kolob, because it is NEAR unto me." Emphasis mine.
It really is interesting to read Joseph Smith's transliterated Hebrew, a mix of Ashkenazic and Eastern Seaboard accents practically leap off of the page at you. Kokaubeem, for example.

I had always assumed that when Joseph Smith made the facsimile of Abraham's illustrations, that he did so by using a thin, semi-transparent piece of paper, tracing over the original image below. I will have to look into that, as your claim warrants deeper investigation. I have no reason to believe that anything contained in the scriptures is inaccurate though.
The author is a PhD, but he earned it in education. Kind of vague, so I don't know if I could say he's qualified to make his assertions in astronomy with the status of an expert in the field, yet the fact that he has a PhD does warrant that one take his academic opinion on pretty much anything at least a little seriously. PhD's don't come easy. Personally, I was impressed by the depth of his descriptions and explanations of astronomic phenomena, and therefore concluded that he must have done his homework on the astronomy at least. That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
I agree with the assessment that we cannot count the number of God's creations, at least starting from scratch and doing so without any kind of technological assistance. And yet, astronomers have come up with estimates on the numbers of stars in our galaxy, which I seem to recall having heard years ago. While there appears to be a discrepancy in logic here, I wouldn't necessarily fault the author for it, nor would I even assume that things are what they might on the surface seem. Maybe they're able to do tricky things with radio telescopes or infrared imaging to be able to come up with that estimate (and obviously, it is an estimate, maybe even a guess-timate). However that number was decided upon, it was someone other than the author who did it. He is just quoting what is considered conventional thinking in the field of astronomy, perhaps in agreement with it, but still, I see no insurmountable logic gap there.
Lastly, your perspective on Hebrew linguistics is interesting. Thank you for adding that to the thread.

Strange thing here Tom, I asked Lord again over several issues that puzzled me with our universal [seeking same information as Enoch sought], and feeling the Holy Ghost I was led to this article. Enlightenment comes from strange places and timing.